One of the big mysteries of online political activism is this - why doesn't it work better? Maybe we need more social media? More video? More mobile devices? Alfred Adler (1870-1937) provides a surprisingly complete explanation of why internet activism is often a bust, and as Shakespeare said "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."
Adlers work answered some basic questions about human nature:
Who are the people who won't cooperate?
Why won't they cooperate?
What do they get out of it?
How do we recognize this lack of cooperation?
When will it appear?
Adler's theories are stunningly simple and complete in explaining why people have antisocial tendencies, low activity levels, and an overwhelming urge to waste their own time while sabotaging the group. But I'm not aware that anyone has ever considered the application of Adler's ideas to the problems of activism. Activism has always been dogged by pointless competitiveness, internal politics, and people undercutting each other. A diary last week mentioned the mystifying "Food Co-Op Wars," and friend reports similar bitter anomosity between animal rescue shelters.
Pressed For Time? - if you want to skip the historical stuff, scroll down to the second half with the blockquotes for the provocative material. Technical terms or key words are in bold, and my comments are in italics.
Alfred Adler was one of Freud's notable contemporaries (but not a student of Freud) who has made impressive contributions to the field of psychoanalysis and psychology. Adler wrote and lectured extensively that emotional and social conflicts were rooted in the contradictory drives for dominance ("superiority") and socialization ("the social instinct") and how anxiety ("the inferiority complex") holds people back socially and personally. He dared to contradict Freud, who was of course still trying to force everything into a paradigm of mothers' breasts and infants' genitals.
Freud staged a coup in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society and demanded that Adler be expelled. Freud was a revolutionary, and like most rebels, Freud had his own ambitions, need to dominate, worries about purity, and his own fears of failure. So it must have irked him to no end for Adler to come up with a much simpler theory that could even explain Freud's motivations at a glance. Adler seems to have followed his own path with no regrets or looking back.
Adler believed that most people's problems were the result of an undeveloped "Social Interest." (which would probably translated better as the "Social Instinct") The social interest includes empathy, involvement with others, goals, a positive approach to life that leads to real achievement, and a transcendent sense of the ideal human condition that was above politics. He saw humans as needing to become accomplished in "Work or employment, love or marriage, social contact," which has also been split into five areas: physical health, intellect, psychological health, social relations, and financial security. Accomplishment in these areas gives people "significance" as human beings. People lacking social interest could not achieve in all these areas, so they would try to substitute an inflated sense of "superiority" over others. They could gain this sense by being aggressive, or by being passive underachievers and forcing their family to wait on them.
The reason that Adler has continued to be important is that he focused on social interactions and compulsion. His ideas helped shape the treatment of addiction, domestic abuse, and family counseling, which included some of his early cases. Adler's work was the precursor of humanists like Maslow and Erich Fromm and Carl Rogers. And in their work we see the junction of sociology and psychology, which is another area where Adler's ideas fill the gaps left by the Freudians. Later generations of Neo-Freudians have adopted many of Adler concepts, largely without acknowledging his influence. Some very good contemporary Freudians greatly diminish their own standing by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge Adler's contributions.
Adler focused on how man's social instinct conflicted with the need to believe himself superior while feeling inferior. Many of Adler's patients were "defiant," and his therapeutic emphasis was cheerful cooperation rather than exhaustive analysis of the past because defiance thrives on conflict and opposition.
Adler also described the "Redeemer Complex" in which his patients tried to save or "redeem" others, and there we see the subject of codependency and the basis of understanding relationships involving addiction. His therapeutic style contributed to the creation of Cognitive Therapy, which is widely used in the treatment of compulsion disorders that Adler identified.
One of Adlers central concepts (strenuously ignored by neo-Freudians) is his theory of "Compulsion Neurosis," although the term is no longer is use. The compulsion neurotic has a crippling lack of self esteem that they conceal and deny by blaming their compulsive symptoms. They also puff themselves up as moral authorities while being anti-intellectual and acting "defiant." Today we would describe them as people with low activity levels and antisocial tendencies, with guilt projected onto others to justify irrational accusations.
By "compulsion" Adler meant ideas or acts that the patient or average person has difficulty controlling. Modern people are so fixed on the idea of "compulsion" as OCD that they need to be reminded that self sabotaging acts are like drinking or getting a dozen speeding tickets are also compulsions. Self sabotage is a compulsion, but these compulsions include the urge to sabotage others and so become superior to them. Adler felt that OCD was related to other compulsive behaviors, and that the exact symptoms of the compulsive behavior was less important that the common anxiety disorders behind the compulsion:
.....The compulsion,...does not reside in the obsessive symptoms, but in the actualities of life which seem terrifying to the individual (what is the person avoiding by being distracted?)...... depending upon the needs of the situation, he prepares anxiety-and compulsion-situations, sleeplessness, swooning, perversions (want to ask Anthony Wiener about self sabotaging compulsions?), hallucinations, slightly pathological affects, neurasthenic and hypochondriacal complexes and psychotic pictures of his actual condition, all of which are to serve him as excuses.
If someone is paralyzed by their sense of inferiority and fear of failure, the internet is the perfect refuge. They can play at being superior while never risking or accomplishing anything. And they really can sabotage others!
Adler also refused to create an elaborate system of jargon for his theories, preferring a simple plainspoken style that academics and mystics would disdain. However, this simple accessible style was the clear foundation for Cognitive Therapy that has been very effective in interventions and family therapy. Adler's treatment of issues of power, control, compulsion, and self sabotage provide a straightforward model for the destructive arc of power struggles.
But even though Adler deemphasized jargon, a couple of his concepts are familiar , especially the "Inferiority Complex" that is the normal feelings of inadequacy that all of have as we grow up and try to figure out who we are. The question is whether the child grows into a healthy adult or will they instead become a defiant underachiever. The defiant personality will almost always have a "Superiority Complex," which is compensation for their real feelings of inferiority.
...We should not be astonished if in the cases where we see an inferiority complex we find a superiority complex.......Behind everyone who behaves as if he were superior to others, we can suspect a feeling of inferiority which calls for very special efforts of concealment. It is as if a man feared that he was too small and walked on his toes to make himself seem taller.
We could also say that their sense of inferiority is projected onto other people. The Superiority Complex peaks in the addict or drunk, and a typical "intervention" videos shows the addict laughing and sneering constantly. The Superiority Complex also explains how some people can pretend to have a literally endless supply of self esteem despite a very limited ability to function, chronic depression, dependency on others, constant anxiety about what other people "really think," and a general sense that everything revolves around them. In contrast, the narcissist or sociopath really does feel omnipotent most of the time, doesn't give a shit what other people think, and they
know they are the center of the universe.
Adler also explored the issue of dependency and how people with the superiority complex were usually very dependent on their families. Indeed, he said "The chief pleasure of the neurotic is to be served by their family." Defiant underachieving is a great way to force ones family into this role. And Adler recognized that symptoms are not random - they are contrived and timed for maximum effect. The person who seems to have uncontrollable rage towards their child will usually have remarkable self control while talking to a policeman, and the more pathological someone is, the more they are able to split their behavior.
We must never neglect the patient's own use of his symptoms (to gain the advantage over others)
And we expect to see the symptom become part of the Superiority Complex. Someone will brag about something like their "sensitive" nature (ie hair trigger temper), or something else odd enough that it leaves the listener thinking "Man you don't need to brag about that, you need some damn therapy." Although the neurotic thrives on pity, if someone has actual empathy for the neurotic, the neurotic may attack them, because if someone understands the neurotic's manipulative nature it threatens the neurotic's power over others and their shabby ersatz "self-esteem."
The defiant individual is strikingly similar to Eric Hoffer's description of political revolutionaries as "misfits" and people who are often failures before lashing out at the system. However, Hoffer noted that many "misfits" are simply out of step with their time or culture. As Hoffer said, there would not be Christianity if the Pharisees had only called Jesus "rabbi," but by making Christ an outcast they created a revolution. And we might have avoided WW2 if only Hitler had not been denied admission to art school in Vienna. Sometimes the misfit is a madman, sometimes not. See my Eric Hoffer diary for a balanced view of his ideas. Therefore this diary is not a blanket condemnation of activists, and I'll just preemptively say that any making such an accusation should review the list of defiant neurotic traits shown below.
There are certainly examples of activists across the political spectrum from left to right who have turned out to be self destructive publicity hounds. On the other hand, there are extremely effective activists like Fred Rogers. The reason we don't immediately think of him as an "activist" is that he wasn't trapped in a neurotic cycle of defiance. And like Adler, Fred Rogers put a big emphasis on a supportive enriched environment for children
On the other hand, the more antisocial someone is, the more effort they put into constructing a grandiose image as a savior or a benefactor. The person who swindles the elderly will always present himself as their savior. And being a defiant underachiever is actually really handy for being a political joiner (and a splitter or a turncoat). In Fight Club, the nameless narrator is literally insane, but he builds an army based young men's need for superiority:
A defiant personality uses denialism, and denialism is the foundation of faith for the True Believer. The belief itself is what Hoffer calls "make believe." As Hoffer noted, the True Believer must also be a denialist that rejects a hundred alternate explanations for every article of faith. Believing the earth is 6,000 years old requires rejecting high school science. Likewise, following Jesus requires the denial of Zeus, Odin, Mithra, Baal, Cthulu, and that whole bunch. This was not an original idea of Hoffers, and apparently theologians have been kicking this denial/faith paradox down the road for at least 500 years.
So denialism goes hand in hand with an intense form of gullibility which we expect from a cult member. Both Adler and Hoffer note that the "make believe" is frequently a paranoid fantasy of persecution. Paranoid make believe? Well there's your internet conspiracy theorist. But the more someone is fixated on a single cause and a single viewpoint, the more effort they have to put into denial of alternate ideas, and what has also been called "pseudostupidity" (see downthread for more about that ). Take a moment to think of the dumbest CT you can think of and how much these people's self esteem depends of congratulating each other over flagrantly stupid beliefs. The Nazis come to mind, and although Adler was in Austria in the 1930's, he died in 1937. So he did not have a chance to analyze the rise of National Socialism, although a recent book by Zalampas looks at Hitler from the Adlerian perspective.
The defiant personality has an "us against the world" identity where they see themselves as the target of a conspiracy and persecution. Obviously, it also encourages views that are outside the mainstream. For activists, the risk of single issue activism is that it will create a closed loop of myths and urban legends, ignorance, and defensiveness. Single issue activists often have a stunning lack of knowledge about their own cause, which pretty much ensures that not much is going to get done. All this zaniness can paralyze a group of like minded activists, satisfying Adler's model of a time wasting enterprise whose main benefit is boosting the members self esteem rather than results. And single issue groups are often disturbingly anti-intellectual (anti-vaxxers, birthers, creationists). Random defiant anti-intellectual activity will attract many people regardless of the political agenda See the works of Karl Popper for more on society's cyclical spasms of anti-intellectual politics. Likewise, revolutionaries often switch sides because their ideals are less important than the act of defiance.
Now let's shift gears and enjoy Adler in his own words. Let's see what rings a bell.
So where does this defiant personality come from? Adler attributes the personality type to parents and
continual nagging, scolding, derision, and fault finding
which the parent uses to actively mold the child into a younger version of the parent
.....(it is) a way of training....such as physical inferiority, (or) the influence of environment, or the imitation of examples.
The alert reader or 12-step program member might say "A generational pattern of compulsion, nagging, scolding, derision, and fault finding? That's a codependent dry drunk!" And if you want to read more about that, see my previous diaries including "What Is a Codependent Dry Drunk?"
A constant theme in Adlers work is the compusive neurotics inability to finish anything useful, waste time, and create useless crap that they are still quite proud of.
A striving for personal superiority which, from fear of betraying an actual inferiority, is diverted into easy and generally useless channels....The feelings of guilt and humility...extravagant exercises of penance...are elaborations of the effort to kill time..... The symptoms are a big heap of rubbish on which the patient builds to hide himself....the power that he exercises over others is that he expects them to look after him....(if you ask him about his significance) he will point to his rubbish heap. ....his superiority is proved in the line of uselessness....
Wait, did someone say "waste time?" Well this is the internet, the ultimate black hole for wasted time!
The defiant person is going to be disruptive
...At home, the child tries make himself the center of attention, and at school, he must be disruptive.
Well that's hardly unknown on the internet is it? That is simply what a
troll is. But where is the "superiority? " Wait for it.....
The compulsion neurotic that puts down others for not living up to a mythical ideal of purity.
..........It is one of the most effective attitudes of the neurotic to (negatively compare) a real person (to) an ideal, since in doing so he (the neurotic) can depreciate him (others) as much as he wishes.
Well that right there is a
purity troll, right?
And what about how people make a such display of being angry for select audiences? Being angry is what makes someone special, anger is what makes them good, public displays of anger are a source of pride
....There would be far fewer outbursts of temper if the possibility were not offered of assuring oneself significance in this way.
Note that gaining
"significance" in the eyes of others means a public display of anger that provides a substitute for actual self esteem, a cure for their feelings of insignificance. Tell me that's not a big driver of people behavior online.
And there are certainly groups of people online who claim to be persecuted while handing out more donuts than anyone else, and people who claim they are being harassed while obsessively following other people around. This tactic has been used systematically by right wing troll on social media sites.
..Defiant individuals will always persecute others, yet will always consider themselves persecuted...
Again we see Adler ahead of his time, because recent studies show that many
cyberbullies consider themselves to be the victim rather than aggressor. In Freudian terms this is a
reaction-formation against sadistic impulses which someone unconsciously rejects with strangely empty declarations of love and tolerance.
And let's not forget, "persecuting others" is a group activity. Bullies travel in groups, especially those that are fundamentally weak and looking for status in the eyes of the group.
And where that bullying group is part of a larger real life organization they will almost usually gang up on the competent people, sabotage them, kill the organization and happily gnaw the bones until the bank padlocks the building.
While Adler focused on the role of the defiant person at in the family and in rebellion against society, I don't think he got as far as workplace bullying and malingering. Competent people are "bad" and "mean" and they have to go, because all relationships need to be neurotic (codependent) relationships that serve the superiority complex. Compare this with later aggression theory that describes "envy" and the cause of violent obsessive hatred which I described in Psychology of Hatred diaries.
The compulsion neurotic's behavior is repetitive and cartoon-like and predictable:
......this enables us to predict with reasonable accuracy his entire mode of expression, all his movement.....
We've all seen the lady with in your local papers comments section that spends her life online calling everyone a "baby killer." She'll be there tomorrow, as sure as the sun will rise
And how about that group? unless there's a charismatic leader, it's probably going to be fairly small.
.....This is the common characteristic of the compulsion neurotic; he has a sense of absolute superiority , and at the same time excludes social ties from his life......... he sought to maintain his neurotic circle of relationships and activity by means of eliminating other spheres of activity and other relationships. He narrowed down the radius of his activities in an attempt to protect the fiction of his own uniqueness
It's got to be tough to maintain
"uniqueness" while maintaining the purity of the group, especially when the compulsion neurotic is
almost completely predictable.
How sad to be drab, rigid, almost completely predictable! As The Who said in "Quadrophenia," their anthem to teen rebellion -"Ain't it funny how we all seem to look the same?"
I was hoping for an example of when such a group has a "furious agreement" with someone who would like to be on their side, but they turn on the outsider because Purity, but, again I don't think Adler got that far.
With "superiority complex" we see the elaborate endzone celebration of the right wing trolls and dismissive remarks like "yawn," "snicker," and "hilarious," which seems to be a favorite when a right wing troll reaches the end of their rope. And again we see the predictability and the seemingly magical ability to base their self esteem on a couple comments used year in and year out:
....he may invent a standard rejoinder - usually derogatory - which occurs to him on every occasion when his pride and vanity are injured.
And then of course there is the familiar tactic of accusing someone of lying over some trivial point while using the "analyze and accuse" style of misrepresenting others statements
.... a pedantic striving for faultlessness and perfect accuracy ......with (a) tendency to pick apart words and ideas and attach your own meanings to them ...stripped of its intellectual content and objective meaning and is interpreted, always in accordance with the individual's view of the world..... to represent himself n quite petty matters as ethical, noble-minded, and superior to all others.
I think Adler's description really nails a mainstay troll behavior. These pedantic accusations can also be combined with his description of purity trolling. Maybe if we get lucky we'll see some florid pedantic blather in the comments of this diary!
Other writers later described this pedantic behavior as "pseudostupidty" which is a form of sadism. On line, it's generally called"derp."
It is driven by envy (which is synonymous with bitter hatred) of people who know things and people who can stand to communicate with each. This ''destruction of meaning" is used to sabotage other people's interactions, and the person who lacks the "social instinct" will naturally envy it in other people and want to sabotage it (note the similarity to codependent gatekeeping of communication). The person that is paralyzed by the amount of time they waste will envy other people's more effective use of time and they will want to sabotage other people's time, accomplishments, and interaction. The person who can't build an organization or effectively participate will envy those who can, and they will try to sabotage the organization.
Pseudostupidy seems to also be a way of sabotage others that is also entirely consistent with Adler's time wasting "compulsive neurosis," because pseudostupidity in the internet troll usually makes them say "Explain to me how I'm wrong!" To which I reply "Sorry, go flesh out you ideas to some actual talking points and we'll banter, but I'm not doing your homework for you."
The flip side of this behavior is a sort of regression to a child like low-functioning codependent posture "I don't understand the point you are trying make!" This may come right after they claiming to be an intellectual giant is showing both forms of "superiority," and in the helpless pose they are the wealthy invalid ringing the bell for their servants to come running.
The pedantic "destruction of meaning" and subsequent accusations based on interpretation (usually pot-kettle-black projection) to create feelings of "superiority" are prominent in many forms of mental illness. Adler was aware that patients with cyclothymia (early bipolar spectrum depression) and schizophrenia also seemed to have unlimited self esteem. Today these delusions of superiority are usually called "grandiosity." We now recognize this intense self love as extremely common symptom of narcissists, sociopaths, and various personality disorders. from wikipedia:
.....Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur is principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders...... fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. (wikipedia)
In modern terms, grandiosity would usually be associated with emotional sadism, although in codependency it is a sloppy hot mess of sadism and masochism. And being "superior" means sabotaging others to gain the advantage, and there we see the sadistic component of narcissists, personality disorders, and codependency.
A common delusion is the belief that someone "knows" what the other person is thinking and why. This seems to fall under the category of "delusions (that) are generally fantastic and ... have a supernatural, science-fictional...theme," which in this case is mind reading.
That is an area where Adler's work overlaps with modern ideas of codependency and its obsession with fantasies about what other people are thinking. (also seen in schizophrenia and bipolar). Moreover, claiming to know what people think is essential to Adler's pedantic "interpret and accuse" style of superiority as well as purity trolling.
And of course, this paranoid style of belief is consistent with Adler's description of how a group picks someone out for persecution. Is it possible to unite a group this way? Well, recall that Hoffer said that defiant "misfits" unite through shared make believe that is often paranoid. I'd post a video of "The Crucible," but you can connect the dots regards witch trials.
Also Adler clearrly sees the role of codependency/coaddiction in his "Redeemer complex" - the belief that they can change an addictive partner . Gee, why do so many internet trolls specifically seem to be skipping Al-Anon? Well here's Adler pointing out the link to the codependent family!
....One of the most interesting complexes is the redeemer complex. It characterizes people who conspicuously but unknowingly take the attitude that they must save or redeem someone. There are thousands and degrees and variations, but it is always clearly the attitude of a person who finds his superiority in solving the complications of others.
I wrote previously about the "codependent dry drunk" and their inevitable "support network." While Adler does not explore the issues of codependent behavior in depth, there is a whole body of literature about codependency and how the codependent personality is driven by the idea of being superior to the addict in a way that seems to spring directly from Adler's work.. Adler mentions the masochistic sense of entitlement and expectation of reward and the sadistic urges in this personality, but he also avoids using those labels.
So while all the building blocks are there for a discussion of codependency and sadomasochistic personality disorders, Adler doesn't seem to explore the group identity of underachievers and their shared sense of rage, superiority, entitlement, and mutual pity that encourages them to bully others. But it is specifically through Al-Anon the codependent can pry themselves away from these morbid "friends" and discover what Adler called the "Social Interest."
Adler's model explains what trolls are, and he predicts that trolls can't walk away from fights and they should unravel the same way pretty much every time:
....The neurosis and all the special disturbances always put in their appearance whenever the patient feels he is challenged to prove his superiority....
Adler predicts a neurotic meltdown in response to being contradicted. On line, we can can see the meltdown complete the full cycle in less than hour. This is in contrast to bipolar/codependent/personality disorder in real life that can be an arc that takes two years.
A "defiant" person looking for conflict ( a troll) is going try to be superior with their stereotype time-wasting of their own time and sabotage others by wasting their time. According to Adler it's going to be a completely "predictable" script, and therefore easily "challenged" with real information by people that actually know things (the object of envy and hatred), and then this is likely to trigger the public "display of anger" and the rest of the usual "superiority" tactics. The public anger is likely to include the "pedantic" behavior where the critics words are "stripped of its intellectual content and objective meaning and is interpreted," which is to say that they will make shit up so they have an excuse for a public temper tantrum.
And if these tactics are ignored this culminates in a the meltdown that they may be powerless to prevent. And according to Adler they'll then seek status as the victim of "persecution." And of course, once they claim victim status, then they are able to seek the self righteous (sadistic) persecution of others that Adler describes. The switch from superior to inferior status is more fully described in therapeutic guides for the treatment of alcoholic families. But by rationalizing that people who actually know stuff and do things are just mean old vicious abusers, they have managed to go full circle and convince themselves that they really are superior after all! See? Armor plated with unlimited self esteem! The Adlerian superiority of the defiant underachiever has gone full circle and he emerges with his delusional grandiosity intact!
And the acid test to see if someone is online purely for neurotic gratification is to see if they handle a little Q&A without melting down and looking for revenge. Hmmm.....sort of like an academic degree oral defense - it's not a proof of mental health but it does prove there's a certain level of functioning. The political implication is interesting - that a person could be a rebel and an apparent humanitarian, but if they gain a little power they could turn into a tyrant. Say it ain't so! But this exactly the arc followed by Freud.
And that brings us to the final point - the Leader Complex. The compulsion neurotic is often so convinced of the superiority that they are convinced they are a born leader. Naturally this requires no work or the ability to persuade people outside a little circle of similar people. Work and study is for bad people, mean people. This seems to be extremely common in the workplace, I mean we've all ridden the bus to Hell driven by the ranting unqualified boss and his untouchable stooges, right?
Of course, Adler's ideas have been adapted over the years, and what he called "compulsive neurosis" would have several different labels today, depending on the severity of the symptoms. But this is probably a better stopping point rather going on to talk about modern labels. And really, that's respecting the way that Adler thought the subject should be approached - with a minimum of jargon.
If you or someone you love sounds like the personality Adler described, then developing the social interest would be an important goal. And the best way for most of those people would be the appropriate 12 step group. The internet is bad for people's mental health because it seems to be a magnet for people who are avoiding going to Al-Anon or similar programs.
But back to the original question - why is internet activism so disappointing? Because we can see the overlap between the people who are most attracted to the internet and Adlers descriptions of his patients , who were defined by their inability to complete projects and get stuff done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One final thought on interacting with people like this - and this is drawn from guides to therapeutic strategy -If someone points out how to a defiant person how damaging their behavior is, their reaction will be........wait for it.......defiance. And because it involves a social interaction with someone with antisocial tendencies, they will perceive this as a violent, devastating almost physical attack. Just pointing out in a moral (not moralizing) tone that they aren't getting anything done is likely to activate antisocial rage and hatred. Expressing genuine empathy for someone with antisocial tendencies just invites retaliation. Empathy contradicts their feelings of superiority which need to be validated by their allies and epic searches for pity.
Although the internet is an almost perfect outlet for antisocial personalities, people can still complain about antisocial behavior, and this dissent is intolerable to the antisocial character. Because the dependency issues are central to their character, they will appeal to authority figures (mommy substitutes) Therefore antisocial people must "work the refs" continuously, so they can usually be found flopping around like soccer players trying to fake a foul.
Trying to win by faking injury is a common strategy and it fits neatly into Adler's model because this is how to win by cheating, and winning by cheating is both defiance of the system and being superior to the fool who tries to win by work and practice. And the defiant personality doesn't hesitate to grovel for authority figures, because it give the defiant person the chance to later betray the person in authority and "outsmart" them.
In real life, such a person needs a codependent relationship with an authority figure, so someone who moderates a web site would be besieged by people demanding codependent favors. Maybe automated moderation at DailyKos is the way to go, and it may be a craftier strategy than its creators realize. We'll see how good people are at milking the system, but we can be assured that it will be the same people doing the same things over and over and over.